Be it resolved, adjusting stats using league GPG is a useless endeavor.

Apotheosis

Registered User
Mar 27, 2014
11,605
5,140
Toronto, Ontario
You could probably created a very easy to understand algorithm based on average 5v5 GPG versus the amount of PP's of a given era to give more credence to the adjusting for era idea.
 

Demon Eyes

Registered User
Nov 29, 2014
483
241
who knows, i tried to get answer once on some website that gave some low number for Joe Malone's era adjusted 44 goals in 20, i think they came up with less the a point a game. but using their formula i came up with at least 140 goals in a season
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
who knows, i tried to get answer once on some website that gave some low number for Joe Malone's era adjusted 44 goals in 20, i think they came up with less the a point a game. but using their formula i came up with at least 140 goals in a season

Joe Malone's era there was limited substitution. Many played all 60 minutes.

So adjusting for modern TOI where a #1 center may play 20-25 minutes a game in a four line rotation would bring the goals down to under 1 per game. Since assists were very sparsely distributed - Malone was awarded 4 the same season, his assists would be adjusted downward as well.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
I don't know how you go from "one website had a weird adjustment" to "doing this is a useless endeavor".

I don't see how it comes close to looking at performance vs. peers with an appropriate peer sample segment and size. It seems to be used primary to back up assertions that scoring in the '80s was easy and/or scoring in the DPE was harder.
 

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,249
3,970
hockeygoalies.org
I don't see how it comes close to looking at performance vs. peers with an appropriate peer sample segment and size. It seems to be used primary to back up assertions that scoring in the '80s was easy and/or scoring in the DPE was harder.

I'm not sure why you responded to my comment with this, since (1) my comment that you responded to was a specific response to a weird jump to conclusions, and (2) I largely agree with you in your first sentence above.

However, the fact that a method doesn't account for all potential differences doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used (because it sounds like you're advocating for "no adjustment" - so please clarify). Reasonable people can look at adjusted statistics under a similar lens, and use them appropriately in context.

To your last point, scoring in the 1980s *was* easier (although not "easy" per your post), and scoring in the DPE *was* harder. People watching the games can see that - you don't even need to look at raw scoring numbers to tell you that.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
To your last point, scoring in the 1980s *was* easier (although not "easy" per your post), and scoring in the DPE *was* harder. People watching the games can see that - you don't even need to look at raw scoring numbers to tell you that.

What I meant was the best scorers in the '80s seem to get looked down upon and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument. A prime example is Bossy's 147 point season in 81/82 which, once adjusted, would be good for 6th place in the 1998/99 season.

Conversely, the best players in the DPE are portrayed as better than players from other eras and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
However, the fact that a method doesn't account for all potential differences doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used (because it sounds like you're advocating for "no adjustment" - so please clarify). Reasonable people can look at adjusted statistics under a similar lens, and use them appropriately in context.

I advocate for performance vs. peers as the primary metric for comparing players which assumes that the Top 20 to 30 scorers in any given year is at the same talent level as any other year.
 

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,249
3,970
hockeygoalies.org
What I meant was the best scorers in the '80s seem to get looked down upon and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument. A prime example is Bossy's 147 point season in 81/82 which, once adjusted, would be good for 6th place in the 1998/99 season.

Conversely, the best players in the DPE are portrayed as better than players from other eras and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument.

My problem with the bolded (and more largely, the problem that I have with the entire premise of the thread) is that you suggest that there's only one way to do the adjusting, and that it was handed down to Moses on stone tablets or something.

There are better ways; many people do them. It sounds like you have one that you'd like to propose - as someone who initially helped found this specific sub-forum, I would *love* to see a thread started on it. Start by describing the method, then show some results. People can help point to things that look funny, which may lead to further refinements and an even better method.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
My problem with the bolded (and more largely, the problem that I have with the entire premise of the thread) is that you suggest that there's only one way to do the adjusting, and that it was handed down to Moses on stone tablets or something.

Is there another way to adjust using league GPG?
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
What I meant was the best scorers in the '80s seem to get looked down upon and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument. A prime example is Bossy's 147 point season in 81/82 which, once adjusted, would be good for 6th place in the 1998/99 season.

Conversely, the best players in the DPE are portrayed as better than players from other eras and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument.

The average scoring rate in '82 was 8.02 goals per game. It's the highest scoring season since 1944. It was the season in which Maruk scored 136 points.

The average scoring rate in '99 was 5.26 goals per game, which is significantly lower.

The numbers of PPOs in '99 was 0.38 higher per game than in '82. I'm not sure how much ice time top line players received on average in '82 compared to '99. Average TOI of top line/super star players and the average number number of PPOs per game would have to be taken into consideration when comparing adjusted point totals between these seasons for premiere players.

And of course, the '82 season was an 80 game season. The 1999 game season was an 82 game season.
 
Last edited:

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,950
12,220
North Tonawanda, NY
I advocate for performance vs. peers as the primary metric for comparing players which assumes that the Top 20 to 30 scorers in any given year is at the same talent level as any other year.

There's a significant difference between "adjusting for GPG is useless" and "there's other methods that are better"

If your point is that a naive adjustment (divide by GPG in year, multiple by a common/goal GPG) doesn't have much value then, sure virtually everyone agree with that. But even then, it's not useless.
 

Demon Eyes

Registered User
Nov 29, 2014
483
241
Joe Malone's era there was limited substitution. Many played all 60 minutes.

So adjusting for modern TOI where a #1 center may play 20-25 minutes a game in a four line rotation would bring the goals down to under 1 per game. Since assists were very sparsely distributed - Malone was awarded 4 the same season, his assists would be adjusted downward as well.
makes sense when you put it that way
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
The average scoring rate in '82 was 8.02 goals per game. It's the highest scoring season since 1944. It was the season in which Maruk scored 136 points.

The average scoring rate in '99 was 5.26 goals per game, which is significantly lower.

Except the scoring levels by the Top 30 players in both of those seasons is not lower by the same 8/5.26 ratio. Whatever the reason for the difference in scoring it did not affect the elite offensive forwards production levels as much.

That is the flaw in adjusting.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
There's a significant difference between "adjusting for GPG is useless" and "there's other methods that are better"

If your point is that a naive adjustment (divide by GPG in year, multiple by a common/goal GPG) doesn't have much value then, sure virtually everyone agree with that. But even then, it's not useless.

Fair enough. Lots of posters don't agree that it has little value and defend it's use to back up a specific opinion.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Except the scoring levels by the Top 30 players in both of those seasons is not lower by the same 8/5.26 ratio. Whatever the reason for the difference in scoring it did not affect the elite offensive forwards production levels as much.

That is the flaw in adjusting.

Actually you are drifting into a different topic - distribution of GPG, be it by team, by player or by sitution. Once this is grounded then you could include such results into weighed scoring adjustments.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,712
6,432
Brampton, ON
Except the scoring levels by the Top 30 players in both of those seasons is not lower by the same 8/5.26 ratio. Whatever the reason for the difference in scoring it did not affect the elite offensive forwards production levels as much.

That is the flaw in adjusting.

The top 30 goal scorers in 1982 posted these goal totals:

1. Gretzky - 92
2. Bossy - 64
3. Maruk - 60
4. Ciccarelli - 55
5. Vaive - 54
6. Stoughton - 52
7. Middleton - 51
8. Messier - 50
9. Dionne - 50
10. Trottier - 50
11. Stastny - 46
12. Barber - 45
13. Hawerchuk - 45
14. Secord - 44
15. Propp - 44
16. Pederson - 44
17. Lukowich - 43
18. Smith - 43
19. Goulet - 42
20. McDonald - 40
21. Duguay - 40
22. Napier - 40
23. Sutter - 39
24. Tardiff - 39
25. Wilson - 39
26. Taylor - 39
27. Broten - 38
28. Petterson - 38
29. Walter - 38
30. Gillies - 38

These 30 players combined for 1402 goals out of the 6741 that were scored League-wide in 1982 (or approximately 21% of the total).


The top 30 goal scorers in 1999 posted these goal totals:

1. Selanne - 47
2. Jagr - 44
3. Yashin - 44
4. Amonte - 44
5. LeClair - 43
6. Sakic - 41
7. Lindros - 40
8. Fleury - 40
9. Satan - 40
10. Robitaille - 39
11. Kariya - 39
12. Graves - 38
13. Berezin - 37
14. Demitra - 37
15. Tkachuk - 36
16. Naslund - 36
17. Straka - 35
18. Modano - 34
19. Hull - 32
20. Clark - 32
21. Bondra - 31
22. Turgeon - 31
23. McEachern - 31
24. Shanahan - 31
25. Sundin - 31
26. Forsberg - 30
27. Primeau - 30
28. Guerin - 30
29. Kozlov - 29
30. Khristich - 29


These 30 players combined for 1081 goals out of the 5830 that were scored League-wide in 1999 (or approximately 19% of the total).


The decrease in the percentage of goals scored by the top 30 goal scorers between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of 23%) is out of proportion to the decrease in the percentage of goals scored per game between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of approximately 34%). This indicates that a larger percentage of goals were being scored by the top 30 scorers in 1999 than in 1982.

The reasons for this could be related to increased PPOs and/or ice time for elite scorers. It's also possible that higher-end scorers simply were simply better able to overcome the improvements in goaltending and defensive play than less talented players.


If you use the analogy of equating goals to currency, then adjusted goal totals accurately represent the values of goals on an adjusted scale. To this extent, these numbers have a purpose. Individual goals are worth more when goals in general are less common.

However, whether point and goal adjustments based on League-wide scoring rates are "fair" to the elite scorers of a given era is a different question. Even if we account for advantages and disadvantages in PPOs, games played and ice time for elite player, it's possible that adjusted point and/or goal totals of elite players from higher scoring eras will be more negatively impacted than perhaps they should be by scoring adjustments based on League-wide scoring rates than the scoring totals of elite players from lower scoring eras.

In my opinion, when differences in games played, PPOs and ice time for elite players are accounted for, adjusted goal and point totals are still a more meaningful basis for comparing the scoring totals of players from different eras since the 1967 expansion than using raw point totals, which obviously heavily favor players from higher scoring eras.

I'm sure you'll agree Maruk's goal total of 60 from 1982 cannot be compared directly to Jagr's goal total (44) from 1999 in any meaningful way. Their adjusted goal totals from those seasons (51 for Jagr in 81 games and 44 for Maruk) are a better representation of the impact of each player's goal scoring in 1982 and 1999 and a better indicator of each player's goal scoring aptitude as well in this case.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
I'm sure you'll agree Maruk's goal total of 60 from 1982 cannot be compared directly to Jagr's goal total (44) from 1999 in any meaningful way. Their adjusted goal totals from those seasons (51 for Jagr in 81 games and 44 for Maruk) are a better representation of the impact of each player's goal scoring in 1982 and 1999 and a better indicator of each player's goal scoring aptitude as well in this case.

They can easily be compared by looking at where they placed among their peers. Maruk was 3rd in goals, 5 behind Bossy. Jagr was T2 in goals, 7 behind Bure. They seemed to have pretty similar goalscoring years when this is considered.

I don't get how you say that Jagr had the superior goal scoring aptitude without making a boatload of assumptions and also bringing down Bossy's goalscoring goal scoring aptitude as well, a position that I am sure would not be as popular as bringing Maruk a peg or two.

IMO, a performance vs. peers analysis is the best indicator because there are no assumptions being made.
 

Conbon

Registered User
Oct 4, 2016
1,567
1,758
London
They can easily be compared by looking at where they placed among their peers. Maruk was 3rd in goals, 5 behind Bossy. Jagr was T2 in goals, 7 behind Bure. They seemed to have pretty similar goalscoring years when this is considered.

Say Bure gets hurt that year and Jagr finishes number 1 with the exact same goal total. Does that make Jagr's season more impressive? It shouldn't and that's why I don't think comparing scoring relative to their peers is really all that indicative of being a better player.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
Say Bure gets hurt that year and Jagr finishes number 1 with the exact same goal total. Does that make Jagr's season more impressive? It shouldn't and that's why I don't think comparing scoring relative to their peers is really all that indicative of being a better player.

If you look at a large enough sample of peers such as the Top 20 scorers to compare to then this scenario doesn't matter very much.

It shouldn't be too hard to put numbers into context.
 

SmellOfVictory

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
10,959
653
The decrease in the percentage of goals scored by the top 30 goal scorers between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of 23%) is out of proportion to the decrease in the percentage of goals scored per game between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of approximately 34%). This indicates that a larger percentage of goals were being scored by the top 30 scorers in 1999 than in 1982.
Unless I'm reading something wrong, this is not logically sound. If a greater percentage of league goals were scored by top scorers in 1982, then a greater percentages of goals in 1982 were scored by top scorers. You can't use proportional scoring by a subset of the league and compare it directly (or at all) to total decrease in scoring throughout the whole league. The top scorers in 1999 did not score a greater percentage of league goals.

As you state in the first sentence here, the percentage of goals scored by the top 30 goal scorers decreased by 23% between 1982 and 1999. This implies that there are factors negatively impacting the scoring output of top players (one likely example being the decrease in ice time for top lines over time as coaches began actually playing their bottom six - particularly the fourth line). If anything, the information you've provided just bolsters the argument that it's harder to put up high scoring numbers in the modern NHL than it was 30 years ago.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->